On trials: Rickard deserved a trial and Aerys II's refusal to grant him a proper one is just one of his many tyrannical crimes. And I stand by what I said. Vaemond deserved a show trial at the very least, not blatantly thugish vigilantism.

Honestly, on what do you base that idea? You should give people of prestige and power a trial - just as you should have good evidence that such people are guilty of a crime before you accuse them of being criminals - but where is the evidence that everyone deserves a trial?

Maegor gives us more than ample evidence that a king has no need to grant anyone a trial. Even Prince Maegor didn't grant Jonos the Kinslayer's buddies a trial or an honorable way to die. He just hanged them all.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

On Rhaenyra: Simply calling for a ten year-old to be tortured is monstrous, even in a place like Westeros I'd imagine. Moreover, my point with regards to the lavish celebration is that it is (one of many) proof(s) that Rhaenyra was just as horrible a ruler as Aegon II.

Rhaenyra turned out to be a bad ruler. But it was the fact that those traitors stole her crown that made her paranoid and somewhat vindictive. In the end, she failed because she was too soft not because she was too harsh or cruel. She should have mounted Syrax and burned all those would-be dragonslayers. She should have done everything in her power to restore the peace in the city, etc. Vice versa, she shouldn't have imprisoned Corlys nor should she have declared Addam a traitor without good reason. Nettles is more controversial. Seducing the Prince Consort can be seen as treason, right? If Rhaenyra had been a king and Daemon her queen consort Daemon committing adultery with anyone would have been treason. Rhaenyra could have taken his head for the whole thing, too.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

On Bastardy: That never stopped anyone beforehand in Westeros (Aenys-Maegor) or afterward (Daeron-Daemon) so clearly people in-setting have a more nuanced view.

The stories about Aenys' parentage are just that - rumors. Rumors are one thing, and concrete accusations are another. When Ser Morgil Hastwyck accuses Queen Naerys of adultery he has to face Prince Aemon in a trial-by-combat. And this trial only happened because King Aegon himself was behind the accusation and enjoyed seeing the reputation of his siblings tarnished.

If Aegon had been a good person and protective of his siblings he would have dismissed the entire thing, punishing Hastwyck severely for his transgressions.

If you think 'looking at people' and wondering about their looks in comparison to their parents allows you to question the parentage of royal children you are mistaking. Nobody had any such rights. Royal children are royal children when they are recognized as such by the male members of the royal family. And both Laenor Velaryon and King Viserys I recognized Rhaenyra's sons as the trueborn children of Rhaenyra Targaryen and Laenor Velaryon.

This is not the Cersei-Jaime situation where the queen cuckolds the king without his knowledge, nor does it really matter for reasons of state who the biological father of Rhaenyra's sons is. They are unquestionably her children. And she is the Heir Apparent, not Laenor.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

On Support: You're not serious are you? The support of the Crownlands is paltry at best. And for all we know those imprisoned supporters didn't amount to much given that after Rhaenyra took KL they didn't do a whole lot.

Perhaps they were dead by then? Or members of the many houses in the Vale, the Riverlands, or the Reach who ended up supporting her?

And the Crownlands aren't that irrelevant. They should be a rather densely populated area and also be one of the most fertile and most wealthy regions in Westeros.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the Baratheons, you do remember that Borros wanted a royal match and that only Aemond could offer him one right?

Borros was offered a royal marriage by Aemond. We don't know whether he wanted anything from anyone before he was contacted by the two sides. In addition, there is a very strong sign that the maester misrepresented the content of Rhaenyra's letter. Borros was illiterate and his maester whispered the content into his ear. It is after that crucial event that Borros turns against Luke. Chances are pretty small that Rhaenyra wrote a haughty or demanding letter to Borros when she sent her second son to Storm's End - the one who was supposed to have the easy mission.

One assumes that the letter had her praising the courage and the loyalty of House Baratheon to House Targaryen throughout the years, mentioning the kinship between Borros and his first cousin, Princess Rhaenys, etc., and asking him for his help against the evil usurpers, like Lord Robar of old supported Jaehaerys against Maegor.

You have to keep in mind that Borros actually turns against his own family there. Rhaenys is his first cousin. He may have been the kind of person you can easily manipulate, but I think the man was really trapped even before he read the letter - although the misrepresentation of the contents clearly led to him allowing Aemond to kill Lucerys (who, at least officially, was his kinsman, too) - simply because Aemond and Vhagar were there. He had already agreed to marry a daughter to Aemond, and likely expected - quite correctly - that Vhagar would burn down his castle should he decide to break the contract he had already made with Aemond.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The Iron Isles were given free license to raid the Westerlands and the Reach with impunity! That is hardly anything.

Rhaenyra gave Dalton leave to attack her enemies. But it is not that she had to bribe him or anything.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the Reach, have you ever stopped to think maybe they fought not for oaths sworn by their fathers under different circumstances but simply out of fear that the Hightowers were gaining too much power?

The Hightowers weren't ruling the Reach. I see no reason to assume that their peers thought they would be too powerful. Alicent didn't marry Viserys I last week. I can see that the Hightowers wouldn't have been that popular with many Reach lords over their power grab, but challenging them in the field in the name of Rhaenyra was definitely an odd way to show that. They were attacking King Aegon II by doing that, not just House Hightower.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for your assertion that we don't know what the Lannisters would have done prior to Aegon II's coronation, the same goes for Black supporters and more importantly, the fact that Tyland was willing to endure torture at Rhaenyra's hands signifies to me he wasn't afraid of her or her rogue prince.

Sure, we have every reason to believe the Black supporters would have gladly supported Queen Rhaenyra - because the entire Realm knew and expected she would succeed her royal father for 24 years.

Tyland survived the torture he went through, but we don't know whether he said anything or not - I could see him telling the torturers the truth about the split of the treasury and his torturers being unhappy with his answers.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

On dragons: I WAS talking about potentialities. And Dreamfyre was only useless because, again, GRRM chose to make Helaena a Cersei/Cat/Alannys/Lysa mother figure rather than use her in a more active and involved capacity.

Yeah, but all the dragons had the potential to be as bad ass as Sunfyre turned out to be, right? Meleys, Syrax, Caraxes, etc. all could have done some great feats, right?

And by the way - Tessarion was likely the same size as Vermax and Arrax.

35 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

On Guest Right: YOU said, and I quote, "not to mention that guest right isn't all that important in the south anyway" (emphasis mine) despite clear textual proof to the contrary.

It is not that important in the south as it is in the north. And the idea that it is a way to protect criminals or outlaws is simply not supported by anything in the text. Especially not in the king/queen's own backyard.

Link to post

Share on other sites

1. When I said Tessarion would be more than a match for Arrax/Vermax/Tyraxes I meant that the Blue Queen could match any one of them.

That is true, assuming Prince Daeron was a good rider. The problem with those young dragon(rider)s is that they are not likely to be of much use against an experienced dragon(rider), especially if the dragon is considerably larger. In that sense it is really stupid to count Rhaenyra's sons and Daemon's daughter(s) as important assets in the war - just as it is ridiculous to count Jaehaerys and Alysanne as dragonrider assets in 48 AC.

They could do the kind of stuff Daeron did for Lord Hightower - scouting, intimidating the enemy, etc. - but actually risking their lives in a fight against other dragonriders is both risky and stupid.

Those people weren't even adults yet. And we see what happens when you drag an important person - like King Aegon II - in such a fight. He could die.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

2. Vhagar and Dreamfyre alone would have been more than enough to give the Blacks trouble. Just look at Maegor after his mother's death.

Dreamfyre is never counted among the huge and dangerous dragons in TPatQ and TWoIaF. She should have been around the size of Vermithor but we don't know whether she was actually that large or not. We don't know how vulnerable a dragonrider could be if a determined group of dragonriders using smaller, faster dragons close in on a dragon like Dreamfyre or Vhagar.

If Rhaenyra had come with all her dragons it is not that likely that Dreamfyre and Vhagar could have defended the city - or themselves.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

3. YOU stated that guest right doesn't matter very much south of the Neck and I provided clear proof to the contrary so now you're trying to cover your tracks.

It doesn't matter as much as at it does in the North. The idea that 'guest right' can be used to harbor any traitor is simply wrong.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They couldn't have done that without publicly admitting that their only son was unwilling and incapable of fathering children and was perfectly fine with the fact that he was cuckolded by his wife, acknowledging some other man's sons as his.

In addition, it is quite clear that Corlys loved his son, or else the man would have been happy that the faggot was dead instead of trying to find his murderer.

Just because he loved his son would not have authomatically meant he wanted to acknowledge his "grandchildren" even in private. Corlys was unwilling to acknowledge Alyn and Addam either, even after Rhaenys was dead, but did seek a roundabout way to claim them as Laenor´s. So did Corlys have any roundabout way to emphasize that his "grandchildren" were Targaryens more than Velaryons?

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Loras didn't have 'a husband'. And Laenor was only knighted two weeks before his wedding so he had a title at all. The man couldn't fight. The very idea that such a guy could have joined the KG is ridiculous.

Ah yes - Kingsguard is meant to be a bodyguard on foot, not dragonknight/s.

Precisely what are honourable and convenient options for a noble who dislikes heterosexual relationships and might better stay a confirmed bachelor uncle supporting his nephews and nieces? Wall, Faith and Citadel all have their disadvantages. Tyrells backed Loras for Kingsguard - but Loras fought better than Boros.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is too easy a scenario. The number of dragonriders, while not irrelevant, isn't what triggered the Dance. If Helaena had kept herself out of the war - or even teamed up with Rhaenyra's side - the Greens could have still staged a rebellion. It is pretty likely that they would have failed if Rhaenyra and not Aegon II had been crowned in the Dragonpit, but chances are that they would have still tried.

Just as people tried to topple Maegor.

Maegor after 44 had the critical disadvantage of being completely lone dragonrider. No supporters.

Meaning Maegor+Balerion could not simultaneously use his own dracomobility to attack, and leave a protection on a stationary or slow-moving asset like a city, an army or a fleet.

At the start of the Dance as it was, the usable dragons were:

Greens - Vhagar, Sunfyre, Tessarion, Dreamfyre

Blacks - Meleys, Caraxes, Syrax, Vermax, Arrax, Tyraxes

Now, Maegor did suffer escapes. First Jaehaerys, Alysanne and Alyssa. Then years later Rhaena on Dreamfyre

Rhaena was Black Bride. But Jacaerys was a pretty decent boy, compared to Aegon or Aemond. Suppose that instead of being married off at 13 to 15 year old full brother who promptly impregnates her and everyone else, that full brother is sent away, and Helaena is married at 18 to a 13 year old nephew who also promptly impregnates her - she at 18 is rather more mature for that than at 13 - and generally treats her decently... would she escape like Rhaena?

If Greens are split, with three of them - Helaena, Daeron, Alicent - in Red Keep as hostages/defectors, would that discourage the ones on the loose (Aemond, Aegon, Otto) from trying?

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

People don't get trials if they commit crimes against their rulers in their presence. Or they get only rather short trials. Last I looked Rickard Karstark didn't get a proper trial, either, no? Rhaenyra, Corlys/Rhaenys, and Viserys I couldn't afford to allow Vaemond to live after what he tried to pull off there.

Their own declared sentence was loss of tongue. Did they spell out a pretext for taking the rest of Vaemond´s head?

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is - if the king doesn't care who the biological father of his grandsons are, who are Alicent, Otto, and her children to presume to question the parentage of those children? A marriage is a private matter, and without proof you cannot challenge the parentage of a man's children.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just because he loved his son would not have authomatically meant he wanted to acknowledge his "grandchildren" even in private.

But that's what he did. Corlys Velaryon never questioned the right of Jacaerys or Lukerys or Joffrey to inherit Driftmark. Nor did he oppose the betrothals between his granddaughters and Jace/Luke.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Corlys was unwilling to acknowledge Alyn and Addam either, even after Rhaenys was dead, but did seek a roundabout way to claim them as Laenor´s. So did Corlys have any roundabout way to emphasize that his "grandchildren" were Targaryens more than Velaryons?

Marilda's children were only important after Addam claimed a dragon. Prior to that they were nothing, never mind who their father was. And then the point was to legitimize them to make them part of the family rather than simply acknowledge them. Corlys' sons by this Marilda woman wouldn't have any claim to Driftmark while Laenor and Laena's children and Corlys' other nephews and kin were still alive, no? Not to mention that Rhaenyra and her sons wouldn't have looked kindly on the old man if he had tried to prevent them from claiming Driftmark.

We don't know what the whole legitimization decree meant, but my gut feeling is that Jace did not agree that Addam and Alyn came before himself (he was older than Addam and Alyn) and Joffrey in the Driftmark succession. It turned out that Alyn, 'Laenor's son by Marilda', became Corlys' heir because Jacaerys, Joffrey, and Addam all died in the fighting, but if Jace and Joff had lived Driftmark would have gone to Joffrey (and presumably Rhaena, who would have married him).

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Ah yes - Kingsguard is meant to be a bodyguard on foot, not dragonknight/s.

Precisely what are honourable and convenient options for a noble who dislikes heterosexual relationships and might better stay a confirmed bachelor uncle supporting his nephews and nieces? Wall, Faith and Citadel all have their disadvantages. Tyrells backed Loras for Kingsguard - but Loras fought better than Boros.

The Kingsguard is not used to get rid of highborn effeminate homosexuals. If Laenor had been a proper warrior he could have joined the order if that had been his wish. But nothing indicates that the great Laenor Velaryon had any intention to not succeed his famous father as Lord of Driftmark. He was a dragonrider and a great-grandson of the Old King. He did whatever the hell he wanted to do. What little we know about his life attests to that. He married Rhaenyra as the king (and presumably his parents) wanted him to. But nobody could force him to consummate this marriage or give the impression he loved this wife or his, or enjoyed her company.

And his parents were apparently fine with that. Else they would have forced him to leave their island.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Maegor after 44 had the critical disadvantage of being completely lone dragonrider. No supporters.

Meaning Maegor+Balerion could not simultaneously use his own dracomobility to attack, and leave a protection on a stationary or slow-moving asset like a city, an army or a fleet.

At the start of the Dance as it was, the usable dragons were:

Greens - Vhagar, Sunfyre, Tessarion, Dreamfyre

Blacks - Meleys, Caraxes, Syrax, Vermax, Arrax, Tyraxes

Now, Maegor did suffer escapes. First Jaehaerys, Alysanne and Alyssa. Then years later Rhaena on Dreamfyre

Rhaena was Black Bride. But Jacaerys was a pretty decent boy, compared to Aegon or Aemond. Suppose that instead of being married off at 13 to 15 year old full brother who promptly impregnates her and everyone else, that full brother is sent away, and Helaena is married at 18 to a 13 year old nephew who also promptly impregnates her - she at 18 is rather more mature for that than at 13 - and generally treats her decently... would she escape like Rhaena?

If Greens are split, with three of them - Helaena, Daeron, Alicent - in Red Keep as hostages/defectors, would that discourage the ones on the loose (Aemond, Aegon, Otto) from trying?

This is all pretty much irrelevant. Dragonless people rebelled against Maegor and Visenya. Thus certain dragonless people would also have rebelled against Rhaenyra, assuming they felt the need to do so. The Faith Militant and the other rebels didn't give a damn about either Balerion or Vhagar.

A Jace-Helaena marriage could only have helped to prevent a war if the factions had taken that opportunity to forge a lasting peace. Without that, the whole thing could have backfired. There are other possible matches on the table, too - Daeron-Baela, say, or Aegon/Viserys-Jaehaera. But it doesn't seem as if anyone ever considered any of that.

I'm pretty sure that the point of no return between the Black and Greens came in 119 AC with the Aemond affair and Rhaenyra's subsequent marriage to Daemon. The first thing caused great anger on both sides - the Black/Velaryon side for the theft of Vhagar and the Green side for the loss of Aemond's eye. And the Rhaenyra-Daemon marriage made it very unlikely that Otto/Alicent could ever reach a compromise with Rhaenyra.

If they had been willing they could have tried. But they clearly didn't want to try. The only person who wanted peace in his family was Viserys I. And he could preserve it while he was alive.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Their own declared sentence was loss of tongue. Did they spell out a pretext for taking the rest of Vaemond´s head?

The whole tongue-cutting thing was an announcement of the king. And the seriousness of that is pretty obvious from the fact that Viserys I actually included royal princes in that. Anyone referring to his grandsons as 'Strongs' would lose his tongue over this.

But Vaemond did more than just repeat that calumny. He also presumed to lay claim to Driftmark while his lordly uncle was still alive on the basis that the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and the liege lady of Driftmark was an adulteress. That is, well, most unwise.

What do you think Eddard Stark - or any lord of the Realm - would do if his nephew accused his lady wife of being an adulteress (without any proof) and used that pretext to dismiss the claims of all the children of Catelyn Tully?

Do you think the proper way to address such an issue is to sit down and talk the entire thing through?

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Not an obviously established law.

No, that is just common sense and universal practice within patriarchal marriages since time immemorial. The husband rules the family, including his children. He decides whether his wife's children are his seed or not. He can listen to accusations, and he certainly can follow other people's testimony that his wife is an adulteress. But it is his choice - and his choice alone - whether his children are his children - or whether he decides to believe they are bastards born of adultery.

That is why children born in wedlock are the husband's children by default. The state or society at large don't go around and investigate the sex life of two spouses.

The crucial thing here is that Laenor Velaryon acknowledged Rhaenyra's sons as his. That is all we need to know.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We don't know what the whole legitimization decree meant, but my gut feeling is that Jace did not agree that Addam and Alyn came before himself (he was older than Addam and Alyn) and Joffrey in the Driftmark succession. It turned out that Alyn, 'Laenor's son by Marilda', became Corlys' heir because Jacaerys, Joffrey, and Addam all died in the fighting, but if Jace and Joff had lived Driftmark would have gone to Joffrey (and presumably Rhaena, who would have married him).

What happened, in the end, to Rhaena´s and Baela´s claims to Driftmark?

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But nothing indicates that the great Laenor Velaryon had any intention to not succeed his famous father as Lord of Driftmark. He was a dragonrider and a great-grandson of the Old King. He did whatever the hell he wanted to do. What little we know about his life attests to that. He married Rhaenyra as the king (and presumably his parents) wanted him to. But nobody could force him to consummate this marriage or give the impression he loved this wife or his, or enjoyed her company.

And his parents were apparently fine with that. Else they would have forced him to leave their island.

Wonder if they thought the marriage was a good idea. After all, if Laenor wanted to be a Lord, but not to be a father, he might have been a bachelor uncle for Laena´s children.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that is just common sense and universal practice within patriarchal marriages since time immemorial. The husband rules the family, including his children. He decides whether his wife's children are his seed or not. He can listen to accusations, and he certainly can follow other people's testimony that his wife is an adulteress. But it is his choice - and his choice alone - whether his children are his children - or whether he decides to believe they are bastards born of adultery.

That is why children born in wedlock are the husband's children by default. The state or society at large don't go around and investigate the sex life of two spouses.

The crucial thing here is that Laenor Velaryon acknowledged Rhaenyra's sons as his. That is all we need to know.

No. That´s not universal, not in patriarchal marriages nor since times immemorial.

Yes - the common sense universal practice is that children born in wedlock are husband´s children by default.

What bastardy means varies widely between patriarchal societies. As does the question of who may establish bastardy, and by which grounds.

For example, in many societies a husband who believes other people´s testimony that his wife is an adulteress does not have "his choice alone" - he may bring his accusations to a judge, but barring a judgment in his favour, his wife´s children remain his heirs.

If the facts of paternity were irrelevant for Joffrey Targaryen, they were also irrelevant for Joffrey Baratheon. But both Eddard and Stannis act as if they mattered.

Link to post

Share on other sites

What happened, in the end, to Rhaena´s and Baela´s claims to Driftmark?

Corlys married Laenor's only surviving son, Alyn, to Laena's oldest daughter, Baela. Presumably to unite and strengthen their claims that way. It is hardly a coincidence that Baela married Alyn.

8 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Wonder if they thought the marriage was a good idea. After all, if Laenor wanted to be a Lord, but not to be a father, he might have been a bachelor uncle for Laena´s children.

Rhaenys and Corlys wanted their son to be king. When that failed they wanted him to be at least prince (or king) consort. If they had had objections to the Rhaenyra marriage they would have said so. And if they had said so the marriage most likely wouldn't have happened. It is not that either Laenor or Rhaenyra had a strong wish to marry each other.

8 minutes ago, Jaak said:

No. That´s not universal, not in patriarchal marriages nor since times immemorial.

I was speaking in hyperbole there. But in Roman days, for instance, the children were the sole property of the husband. Which means he decided whether they were his or not.

8 minutes ago, Jaak said:

What bastardy means varies widely between patriarchal societies. As does the question of who may establish bastardy, and by which grounds.

Sure, but children born in whatever constitutes a lawful/proper marriage are still the legitimate children of the husband by default.

8 minutes ago, Jaak said:

For example, in many societies a husband who believes other people´s testimony that his wife is an adulteress does not have "his choice alone" - he may bring his accusations to a judge, but barring a judgment in his favour, his wife´s children remain his heirs.

Sure, if a wife is accused of adultery then there might be a trial. But that would only have an effect on the status of the children if the parentage of the children is also part of the adultery accusation. If your wife sleeps with you best friend during a time when she didn't conceive a child there is not necessarily assume the children she had ten years ago where not fathered by you but instead by this guy or somebody else entirely. Especially not if you actually had sex with the woman during the time those children were conceived. And you would know that, right?

8 minutes ago, Jaak said:

If the facts of paternity were irrelevant for Joffrey Targaryen, they were also irrelevant for Joffrey Baratheon. But both Eddard and Stannis act as if they mattered.

Those are different cases. For one, it is quite clear that Cersei/Jaime had their affair behind Robert's back and without his consent. That makes their behavior treason.

Rhaenyra did nothing behind Laenor's back nor without his consent. Nobody forced him to acknowledge her sons as his or give them Velaryon names (and the name of his dead lover, Joffrey Lonmouth). He could have accused her of adultery any day throughout their marriage.

Rhaenyra having sex with Harwin (or any other man) during her marriage with Laenor would have been adultery but not treason.

Now, technically Stannis has just as much 'evidence' that Cersei's children are not Robert's as the Hightowers have evidence that Rhaenyra's sons are not Laenor's. He has the right to go to Robert and lay his suspicions - that Cersei cuckolds him with her own brother - before the king. But he has no right to rebel against King Joffrey and try to steal his throne on the basis of his mere suspicion. He could be wrong, no? And it could be that Robert was aware of all that and perfectly fine with that.

With Ned it is different. He actually heard it from Cersei's own lips that Jaime is the father of all her children, and that Robert has no idea about that. That allows him to move against Cersei but he should still have told Robert about that and asked his opinion on the matter. Forging Robert's last will is treason, too. It would have been Robert's decision whether to go along with the 'King Joffrey' scenario, whether to offer the throne to Stannis, or whether Ned should take a different course entirely - like calling a Great Council and lay the question of the succession before the lords of the Realm (as Bloodraven did after Maekar's death in 233 AC). Or Robert could have told Ned to make Renly king instead of Stannis, knowing fully well that Stannis would suck even more as king as Joffrey would.

Still, if we assumed for a moment Ned hadn't had the opportunity to talk to Robert before the man's death settling the question of the succession would have fallen to him as Hand of the King.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regarding Dreamfyre: Considering how old she was by 129 AC Dreamfyre should have been pretty big. Also, if Rhaenyra had launched an all-out attack it wouldn't have been just Dreamfyre and Vhagar but Sunfyre and possibly Tessarion as well. (We're told that Daeron wept when he heard of his father's death so he may have been in the capital at the time.)

Regarding Guest Right: Again, YOU said it doesn't matter very much south of the Neck, which is refuted by the text. Also, re traitors: Say that to Lyman Lannister.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regarding Dreamfyre: Considering how old she was by 129 AC Dreamfyre should have been pretty big.

Sure, but we have confirmation that dragons can grow rather differently. Meraxes died about 120 prior to Vhagar yet she was larger in 10 AC when she died than Vhagar was when she died in 130 AC.

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, if Rhaenyra had launched an all-out attack it wouldn't have been just Dreamfyre and Vhagar but Sunfyre and possibly Tessarion as well. (We're told that Daeron wept when he heard of his father's death so he may have been in the capital at the time.)

But that doesn't mean that the people of King's Landing would have stood with the Greens in such a scenario. We see what happens when Daemon and Rhaenyra finally take KL. The dragons are one thing, and the fear of the dragons is another. Dragons are only seen as positive when people are sure they have enough to prevent an attack.

Could very well be that Rhaenyra's dragonriders couldn't have defeated all the dragons of the Greens, but they sure as hell could have burned KL and the Red Keep. Rhaenyra had more younger, faster dragons. Have Caraxes, Syrax, and Meleys harass Vhagar and Dreamfyre (if they rise in the air) and the young folks methodically burn down the city.

That would have been scenario everyone feared. If Aegon II had lost his city and castle to fire he would have been 'the king of ashes' Aerys II wanted Robert to be. Which means no king at all. That is also the reason why the Shepherd can alter work the people in such a frenzy - three of the four dragons in the Dragonpit the Kingslanders kill were Green dragons, after all.

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Regarding Guest Right: Again, YOU said it doesn't matter very much south of the Neck, which is refuted by the text.

Well, it doesn't matter as much south of the Neck than it does in the North. That is why the Freys did stage the Red Wedding.

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, re traitors: Say that to Lyman Lannister.

Aegon and Rhaena were not traitors as such, right? Aegon was Aenys' eldest son and chosen heir, and Rhaena was his wife. He was the rightful king. Maegor was stealing Maegor's throne. The Lannisters kept out of the entire conflict. As far as we know they never raised a single levy in Maegor's name.

The Mootons were loyal subjects of Rhaenyra and harbored Nettles and Daemon at Maidenpool at her request. And Nettles did commit adultery with the Prince Consort, did she not? Rhaenyra actually was kind to her husband there. She should have taken his head, too, considering that's what Robert would have done to Cersei had he found out that she was cuckolding him with Jaime. I'd not trust a person with a dragon in the middle of a devastating civil war if she she was sleeping around with my spouse.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think the fact that Targaryens were able to have sister-wives up until as recently as Aerys goes to show how truly absolutist their rule was. What the King says or does is law, and people got so used to it that they didn't really fight against it even when dragons didn't exist anymore.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Maegor gives us more than ample evidence that a king has no need to grant anyone a trial. Even Prince Maegor didn't grant Jonos the Kinslayer's buddies a trial or an honorable way to die. He just hanged them all.

Not to mention the hinted at notion that Maegor killed a bunch of innocent commoners for their skulls to make an illusory demonstration about how he defeated the Poor Fellows and/or the Warrior's Sons. It's implied everyone knew but what the hell could they do about it? He was king. He decides what is true evidence and what is not. A sad state of affairs, but accurate.

Also just wanted to add I feel like Rhaenyra is being unfairly judged here. You have to remember the history you read is from the biased perspective of those that "won," and can say anything they want about the losing side. Flip a few pages forward and read about Robert's Rebellion (especially regarding Tywin and his actions) to remind yourself of the bias present. The Maester goes out of his way to explain the "understandable" reasons why Tywin betrays Aerys II and sacks King's Landing (to the detriment of thousands). Rhaenyra is not cast in such a flattering light because she lost. The Maester can have a certain degree of objectivity because, as far as anyone is concerned, Targaryens are an extinct family. But the sources the Maester has to reference to describe events are still biased based on who won and who lost. The objectivity is limited, at best.

She was the appointed heir but the ambitions of other people threw a wrench in that. I criticize her for not finding a way to remain in King's Landing towards the end of her father's life, especially knowing the enmity between her and her father's new wife and her half-brothers. She could have done more to establish herself in King's Landing, even from afar. But to say she was Maegor with Teets is the bias I refer to in the paragraph above. Just because a king, prince, or heir apparent is described in terms of sweetness and light doesn't mean it's an accurate description. Not everything ends up recorded in the annals of history, especially things the ruling monarch decides needs to be withheld.

A reigning theme of ASoIaF is that stories, songs, and tales are a lie people agree to tell each other until they forget the truth.

Edited November 16 by Traverys

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not to mention the hinted at notion that Maegor killed a bunch of innocent commoners for their skulls to make an illusory demonstration about how he defeated the Poor Fellows and/or the Warrior's Sons. It's implied everyone knew but what the hell could they do about it? He was king. He decides what is true evidence and what is not. A sad state of affairs, but accurate.

And we don't have a reason to believe that a king has to follow due procedure and is forced to grant any defendant a trial(-by-combat).

Especially not a man who the king himself accused of a crime, or a crime where the person was caught red-handed. Tyrion was not essentially caught red-handed murdering Joffrey. And the accusation that he murdered Jon Arryn was also not backed up by any evidence or witnesses.

If you are an important person and your guilt is not obvious to see for everyone you get a trial. If you are caught red-handed - like Bethany Bracken and Simon Toyne were, say, or like Lord Rickard Karstark and his men were by Robb - and you do not deny the accusation you can get executed immediately.

If you claim the children of the Princess of Dragonstone of being bastards and use that as a pretext to lay claim to Driftmark you do that at your own peril. You simply have no right to do that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Are they absolutist? If they were, Jaehaerys would not have called for a Great Council, Aegon the Conqueror would not have retained the Starks, Arryns, Lannisters, etc. The monarchy was a rather weak one, especially if the Conqueror sought to imitate the past king when it came to delivering justice.

As for agnatic primogeniture, it was practiced in the whole of the realm the Targaryens ruled and they themselves had stuck to it.

If Viserys wanted to just prevent Daemon from acquiring the Throne, he could just make Rhaenyra Heir Presumptive, until a son was born to him.

It's called Great Council. Similarily to the Small Council, I don't think the king or Hand or whoever called it is actually obliged to do as the Great Council says. It is to simply hear who the nobles would prefer to sit on the Iron Throne, because when the succession is unclear, some nobles may prefer one possible successor over the other and that could lead to vicious in-fighting (just look at the court before the Dance).

So at that point, it is simply best to listen to who is more popular or who has the more powerful supporters and choose that person to succeed to the Iron Throne.

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's called Great Council. Similarily to the Small Council, I don't think the king or Hand or whoever called it is actually obliged to do as the Great Council says.

We know that Jaehaerys I wasn't bound by the vote of the Great Council. He asked the opinion of his lords in the question of the succession, presumably because he felt that he no longer had the authority to choose an heir and prevent a succession war after his death. But it is quite clear that it was Jaehaerys' word that made Viserys Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent since we have Yandel tell us explicitly that Jaehaerys I named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone after the council was over.

That means Jaehaerys could technically also have ignored the vote of the council, naming Laenor or Laena (or whoever he wanted) Heir Apparent instead.

But then - the whole point of the Great Council was to give the lords a voice in settling the issue of succession peacefully. Jaehaerys isn't called 'the Conciliator' for no reason.

The idea that the Great Council has more authority than the king - or the authority to force the king to stick to its decisions - is completely baseless.

One should also keep in mind that Viserys was Jaehaerys' preferred candidate all along. He was Baelon's eldest son. And Baelon had been Jaehaerys' chosen successor.